Rectory Meadow Surgery

Ratings

• Overall

  Good

• Safe

  Good

• Effective

  Good

• Caring

  Outstanding

• Responsive

  Good

• Well-led

  Good

Our view of the service

Date of Assessment: 4 November to 13 November 2025.

Rectory Meadow Surgery is a GP practice in Amersham, Buckinghamshire and delivers GP services to approximately 10,650 patients under a contract held with NHS England. The practice is a GP practice within Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire and Berkshire West Integrated Care Board (ICB).

The National General Practice Profiles states that the practice population largely follows national averages in terms of age profile, with the exception of patients aged between 20 and 49 which was significantly lower when compared to the national average.

Information published by Office for Health Improvement and Disparities shows that deprivation within the practice population group is in the 10th decile (10 of 10). The lower the decile, the more deprived the practice population is relative to others. This assessment considered the demographics of the people using the service, the context the service was working within and how this impacted service delivery. Where relevant, further commentary is provided in the quality statements section of this report.

The practice was last inspected in April 2015 and was rated Good. At this inspection, the practice is rated Good, and we saw:

The practice had a good learning culture and people could raise concerns. Managers investigated incidents thoroughly. Staff understood and managed risks. The facilities and equipment met the needs of people, were clean and well-maintained and any risks mitigated. There were enough staff with the right skills, qualifications and experience. Leaders made sure staff received training and regular appraisals to maintain high-quality care. Staff managed medicines well and involved people in planning any changes.

Patients were involved in assessments of their needs. Staff reviewed assessments taking account of people’s communication, personal and health needs. Care was based on latest evidence and good practice. Staff worked with all agencies involved in people’s care for the best outcomes and smooth transitions when moving services. Staff made sure people understood their care and treatment to enable them to give informed consent. Staff involved those important to people took decisions in people’s best interests where they did not have capacity.

Patient feedback was positive and reported they were treated with kindness and compassion. Staff protected their privacy and dignity. Patients were treated as individuals and their preferences supported. Patients had choice in their care and treatment. The practice strongly supported staff wellbeing.

Patients, their families and carers were involved in decisions about their care. People knew how to give feedback and were confident the service took it seriously and acted on it. Feedback highlighted the practice was easy to access and worked to eliminate discrimination. The practice worked to reduce health and care inequalities through training, audits, pilots and projects. Patients were involved in planning their care and understood options around choosing to withdraw or not receive care.

There was a shared practice strategy which balanced traditional family values with modern general practice. Leaders at all levels were visible, knowledgeable and supportive, helping staff develop in their roles. Staff felt supported to give feedback and were treated equally, free from bullying or harassment. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities. Leaders worked with the local community to deliver the best possible care and were receptive to new ideas. There was a culture of continuous improvement with staff given time and resources to try new ideas.

People's experience of this service

Patients were positive about the overall quality of the care they received. Specifically, feedback sourced from the National GP Patient Survey regarding overall patient experience was significantly higher when compared to local and national averages. For example:

• 89% of respondents described their overall experience of the practice as good. This was significantly higher when compared to the local average (76%) and the national average (75%).

Further positive feedback was evidenced in the NHS Friends and Family Test results and feedback from the patient group and patient testimonials. For example:

• We reviewed the most recent NHS Friends and Family Test responses collected and verified from August 2025 (226 responses), September 2025 (241 responses) and October 2025 (234 responses). Using the combined responses from the last 3 months; out of 701 responses, 91% rated the service received at the practice as either ‘Good’ or ‘Very Good’.

• There was an active patient participation group (PPG) that represented the views of people using the service. We spoke with 2 representatives from the group, who described how the practice supported, communicated and engaged with the group to make positive changes via their feedback. This included the full support and ongoing commitment to providing patient education events which aligned to the health priorities of practice patients and the wider community. Both patients and staff commented the events had improved patient outcomes including increasing uptake for screening and health checks. Patients said they were more empowered to be actively involved in managing their health following the events.

• The representatives from the PPG also provided positive feedback from their perspective as patients. This feedback aligned to the other positive patient feedback collected externally via the National GP survey and NHS Friends and Family Test.

• We also spoke with patients onsite during the site visit and received positive feedback in relation to access to services and the continuity of staff.